• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
This thread is about the sinking of the Estonia. I am not sure what it is you are so upset about.
Click to expand...

What part of my post seems like I'm upset? You claim to be applying an even, dispassionate hand to the question of whether the captain of Estonia was murdered by gunshot. I pointed out here https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14262646#post14262646 where you show that your trust in the only source for that accusation comes from unwarranted assumptions you've made. Any interest in explaining why you're acting so favorably to the conspiracy theory?

In this post, https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14262704#post14262704 you raised the larger question of being interested in the world around you as an explanation for why you are especially interested in what happened to Estonia. If you're unwilling to explain behavior we've seen from you that contradicts that explanation, then it seems proper not to believe you.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Whilst it is true the vessel was designed to cross between Finland and Sweden, which she did for many years, OTOH it is hardly true that she traversed across 'open ocean'. The journey from Tallinn to Helsinki for example is just 90km so not really different. I don't believe this is a factor in the accident.
Click to expand...


I can say without reservation that the body of water in which a vessel sinks absolutely is a factor in said sinking. Every single time.
 
Vixen said:
Whilst it is true the vessel was designed to cross between Finland and Sweden, which she did for many years, OTOH it is hardly true that she traversed across 'open ocean'. The journey from Tallinn to Helsinki for example is just 90km so not really different. I don't believe this is a factor in the accident.
Click to expand...

And this is why you fail.

Rivers and near-shore environments are not the same as ocean transit. That little stretch of water between England and Ireland is not too wide, but there are hundreds of wrecks dotting the sea floor in that area. I live on the Monterey Bay. The conditions within or bay due to the shape of the coastline, and our spectacular submarine canyon dividing north and south make for a calm southern shoreline. Calmer than San Francisco Bay to the point where Monterey was the U.S. point-of-entry for clipper ships coming from the far east...But...When the waters off Point Pinos, and the Big Sur Coast on down are open ocean. The water behaves differently, the waves are more powerful at any size, and their intensity can change without warning. The beach at Little Sur will never be open to the public for this reason.

Plus, the old report and the new report both state the bow was never designed to sail in the waters under the conditions in which she sank.

As for the Mayday, this is very interesting because the Mayday was made by Tammes, the second or third officer. It should have been made by the Captain, yet this is not even mentioned in the JAIC report. According to the watchman* he was on the bridge as he had been behind him as he was ascending the stairs. The impression of the nearby Mariella captain was that Tammes or whoever, had been trying to communicate earlier ( ship near Sweden claims to have picked up an attempted message earlier). The fact Tammes was unable to give the coordinates immediately (it was NOT GPS) and his colleague could be heard calling them out in the second recorded attempt indicates he was unable to see them, no doubt clinging on for dear life at a severe list. He was using a hand held device which again raises the question of why not use the much better quality radio devices on the bridge.
Click to expand...

Do you even read what you write?

The ship sank in about 15 minutes. The roll was progressively fast, and the bridge crew was caught off guard thanks to nobody checking the car deck, and the bow. Panic set in, and gravity did the rest.

As the captain of nearby Silja Europa told the press, the storm was no worse than usual for a September night.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, yet he and the other ferries sailed at lower speeds than Estonia. And the fact the Estonia is now on the bottom of the Baltic suggests otherwise.

And no, Estonia is not a crap country with a crap crew.

*This guy was jailed for drug smuggling later and was amongst the first off the ship, so who knows how reliable his testimony is.
Click to expand...

Wow, way to contradict yourself.

Also, I never said crap, I said Estonia is a country notorious for ineptitude, corruption, and half-assing things. Same as the other countries that have had catastrophic ferry sinkings in the past 30 years.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I grew up near the southern end of Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes are notorious dangerous for shipping.
Click to expand...

My first serious sailing experience was sailing tall ships on the Great Lakes. People who don't respect the power and anger of the "mere" lakes tend to become the dead that the lakes are infamous for not giving up.
 
Vixen said:
*This guy was jailed for drug smuggling later and was amongst the first off the ship, so who knows how reliable his testimony is.
Click to expand...

What does his being amongst the first off the ship have to do with the reliability of his testimony? How much more slowly should he have gotten off the ship for his testimony to be reliable?
 
Reformed Offlian said:
What does his being amongst the first off the ship have to do with the reliability of his testimony? How much more slowly should he have gotten off the ship for his testimony to be reliable?
Click to expand...

Ah, because it's notable, as if he was in a hurry.

Came off in the middle of the pack? Trying not to look conspicuous.

Near the end? Something to hide!
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, my bad. Rabe is an independent journalist.

Your comments seem to include a lot of vulgar phrases which I shall not comment on.
Click to expand...

You can quit the performative pearl-clutching, I didn't ask you to comment on my mode of address. With that said, I shall do my best to use prude-safe language in this post, lest my earthy manner offend your delicate sensibilities.

You seem to forget that most of the people you engage with on this thread have been here for years, so when you pop back up to repost your bat-poop conspiracies we aren't going to be convinced.

We know your sources are doo-doo.

We know that your theories are silly, unevidenced nonsense.

We have danced this dance before. We have memories.

In all honesty though, I must give you kudos for enticing me into engaging with your fantasy world again. You have an undeniable talent for weaponising frustration.

I know you will never honestly respond to critiques, fact checks and debunkings of your fantastical claims. This is fine, though. These things are not done to draw you into an honest response, but rather to illustrate the dishonesty of you arguments. Maybe that's unfair, maybe your arguments are misinformed, mistaken, erroneous, just plain wrong, or the result of brainwashing by evil space ghosts.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because it's all bollocks sorry, orchids.


Anyway, the ship sank because it was sailed full tilt into stormy waters with a compromised bow, and none of your fantasies, fictions or fabrications have yet convinced me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Ah, because it's notable, as if he was in a hurry.

Came off in the middle of the pack? Trying not to look conspicuous.

Near the end? Something to hide!
Click to expand...

And if he'd been even farther back, his testimony would be *completely* worthless.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I grew up near the southern end of Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes are notorious dangerous for shipping.
Click to expand...

When this topic first came up I pulled up the bathymetry for the Baltic, and the area of the sinking. I looked at the wind reports from that night, and I looked at the currents from the Baltic. The first thing that jumps out was how the shallow sea is, and who the wind - might - effect the currents as they pass around Gotland. While Baltic is not known for currents, the wind would certainly create them, and the combination of the wind and the fresh water mixing from rivers thick with snow-melted cold water sets up the perfect conditions for large rogue waves right in the area where MS Estonia got thwacked.

Had Estonia left an hour earlier, or an hour later she probably would have sailed on without incident. As it was, she was in the wrong place at the right time. And the captain was driving the ship far too fast for those conditions.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
We've all seen the TV footage of 'Piht'. It's on YouTube. It's not him. Conspiracy loons leap to conclude the bit with him in must have been edited out by Sinister Powers.

It shows survivors arriving at hospital in Finland, none of whom is Piht, but when the footage was shown on German TV news, someone mistakenly thought they saw him. So the police went to the TV station to get a full copy of the broadcast footage, which lovers of conspiracy theories rewrite in their heads as the Men In Black turning up to remove and destroy all copies of the footage, ignoring the illogic of thinking that doing so at one German TV station would erase what was recorded in Finland and sent to goodness knows how many places.

This is just as bonkers as people who watch footage of the moon landings while claiming NASA "lost all the tapes" of the very thing they're watching.

I'm feeling more than a little sorry for this dead horse. How many more floggings must it endure?
Click to expand...


The one circulating on youtube is clearly not him. In addition a journalist from YLE (=Finnish equivalent of BBC) had an archive of old broadcasting tapes and he or she retrieved the original tape from some archive box, and it was the same as the one circulating. From the ID on the ambulance, the one circulating is taken at Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm but the one it is claimed was seized from the German station was supposedly Piht at Turku University Hospital (TYKS). Several people rang each other to say they saw him on TV. How true this is, who knows? And of course, when people are grief stricken there is a phenomenon (it has happened to me) when you think you see the departed person on the street but then you look again and it is not them after all (of course).

But the thing is, tv recordings can be seized and wiped. There is nothing wrong with Rabe investigating how come so many people claimed to have seen him. Plus, of course, Piht was reported by a Swedish marine executive as meeting with Bildt and the next morning when Bildt was to visit Turku. Helsingin Sanomat (- Finnish equivalent to the TIMES [as it used to be]) and the EVENING STANDARD in London both also reported this. Piht was later reported as last being seen at Helsinki, by reputable news sources, not to mention the Interpol Arrest Warrant for him. So, yes, it is quite correct to find out how this could happen.
 
Axxman300 said:
And this is why you fail.

Rivers and near-shore environments are not the same as ocean transit. That little stretch of water between England and Ireland is not too wide, but there are hundreds of wrecks dotting the sea floor in that area. I live on the Monterey Bay. The conditions within or bay due to the shape of the coastline, and our spectacular submarine canyon dividing north and south make for a calm southern shoreline. Calmer than San Francisco Bay to the point where Monterey was the U.S. point-of-entry for clipper ships coming from the far east...But...When the waters off Point Pinos, and the Big Sur Coast on down are open ocean. The water behaves differently, the waves are more powerful at any size, and their intensity can change without warning. The beach at Little Sur will never be open to the public for this reason.

Plus, the old report and the new report both state the bow was never designed to sail in the waters under the conditions in which she sank.



Do you even read what you write?

The ship sank in about 15 minutes. The roll was progressively fast, and the bridge crew was caught off guard thanks to nobody checking the car deck, and the bow. Panic set in, and gravity did the rest.



Uh huh, yet he and the other ferries sailed at lower speeds than Estonia. And the fact the Estonia is now on the bottom of the Baltic suggests otherwise.



Wow, way to contradict yourself.

Also, I never said crap, I said Estonia is a country notorious for ineptitude, corruption, and half-assing things. Same as the other countries that have had catastrophic ferry sinkings in the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

It sank in about 35 minutes. It wasn't going particularly fast. The captains of Silja Europa and Mariella both said it was normal for the three ships to travel towards Stockholm together as of a certain point (two were coming from Helsinki, Estonia from Tallinn). Captain Thoresson said he could see Estonia alongside of him and Europa said it was slightly ahead. IIRC Europa and Mariella were doing about 11mn.

The known corruption (from Russia's POV) wasn't from Estonia in this case, it was the Swedes smuggling out USSR military materiel.
 
Axxman300 said:
When this topic first came up I pulled up the bathymetry for the Baltic, and the area of the sinking. I looked at the wind reports from that night, and I looked at the currents from the Baltic. The first thing that jumps out was how the shallow sea is, and who the wind - might - effect the currents as they pass around Gotland. While Baltic is not known for currents, the wind would certainly create them, and the combination of the wind and the fresh water mixing from rivers thick with snow-melted cold water sets up the perfect conditions for large rogue waves right in the area where MS Estonia got thwacked.

Had Estonia left an hour earlier, or an hour later she probably would have sailed on without incident. As it was, she was in the wrong place at the right time. And the captain was driving the ship far too fast for those conditions.
Click to expand...

You should come up and visit the Baltic. The archipelago is one of the wonders of the world. It used to be a lake and then the ice age melting caused it to expand to meet the North Sea further west. The Baltic isn't particularly known for tumultuous waves. There are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of wrecks, but most of them were sunk due to hitting rocks or because of war. Anecdotal, I know, but the North Sea is infinitely rougher than the Baltic, with the most horrendous storms I have ever experienced.

As for 'snow melted cold water' the accident was at the end of September. Sure, Lapland has its first snow generally towards the end of August but the Baltic stops at the Bay of Bothnia which is not really regarded as Lapland. As far south as Helsinki/Tallinn to Stockholm, the first snow is generally around late October but usually only a light flurry, with the real snow happening late December to March, so that would not have been a factor here.
 
junkshop said:
Y<snip invective>

Maybe that's unfair, maybe your arguments are misinformed, mistaken, erroneous, just plain wrong, or the result of brainwashing by evil space ghosts.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because it's all bollocks sorry, orchids.


<snip>
Click to expand...

Motes and beams, ducky.
 
It wasn't about the Baltic being the most violent sea on the planet. It's about careless disregard for the obvious and ominous accumulation of multiple needless risk factors. People who underestimate cumulative risks drown in placid ponds as well as tsunamis, crash on suburban streets as well as racetracks, and die on Mount Washington as well as Mount Everest.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, if you were careful to avoid sailing in bad weather.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, if you were careful to keep her well maintained.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, if you were careful to keep it in perfect trim.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, if you were steaming with a following wind and waves.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, if you reduced your speed.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, at full speed, if your crew were continuously vigilant about the operating condition of every critical part of the vessel and responsive to all warning signs.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, at full speed, with you and your crew slacking off and disregarding warning signs, if you were very lucky.

But we know the vessel, crew, and passengers were not very lucky that night. The reason luck was left as their only (and ultimately inadequate) hope for collective survival was all those other factors that the people who should have known better idiotically allowed to stack up against them without even noticing until it was too late.
 
Mojo said:
Remember, Mark, that Vixen has been lost in the Baltic twice. I bet you haven't even managed it once.
Click to expand...

True, I have not.

I have however been sailing on numerous occasions, including passing a sailing certification thing.

I know what vixen has claimed, but I don't actually believe it.
 
Vixen said:
But the thing is, tv recordings can be seized and wiped.
Click to expand...

The thing is, this is a nothingburger.

This isn't the X-files. Seizing an already-broadcast news report in a country where the footage did not originate would not magic it out of existence. Its presence on YouTube hints that claims of its destruction may be somewhat absurd.
 
Myriad said:
It's about careless disregard for the obvious and ominous accumulation of multiple needless risk factors.
Click to expand...

This is an extremely accurate depiction of the complacency factors we find time and again when investigating accidents. As much as people want to point to single precipitating events, and as much as people want to downplay the effects of individual factors, what we see almost all the time is an accumulation of seemingly acceptable individual allowances that collectively erode the safety margin down to nothing. Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" to describe this phenomenon.

Safety margins are meant to absorb individual and momentary departures from a safe operating envelope. When they are used to absorb ongoing departures, there effectively is no safety margin anymore. The next momentary departure in some variable or subset of variables from their safe operating envelope produces a nonlinear response in the system, usually in the form of some kind of accident. The normalization of deviance arises because individual (and even most chronic) incursions into the safety margin produce no adverse consequence. That's the function of a safety margin: to allow you to observe and respond to an incursion without suffering tightly-coupled consequences. Aside from sustainable regulatory penalties or stern talkings-to, no memorable consequence follows. There is then created in the minds of operators the illusion that the system can be operated safely well inside the safety margin. Operators often realize a greater operational efficiency by doing so, and thereby are tempted to continue doing it. A false assurance of safety is speciously reckoned from the lack of catastrophe inherent to the safety margin—the absence of memorable consequence.

In short, what we usually see in operators implicated in accidents is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and intent of a safety margin. This is what we saw in the MS Estonia case. Operators were blind to the cumulative effect of individually sustainable conditions that had been allowed to become chronic in order to expand production efficiency. In this predicament, the precipitating event need not have been singularly catastrophic, or even especially deviant. With no effective safety margin to absorb it, even a seemingly incremental degradation can cause the system to respond in a nonlinear manner.
 
Mojo said:
Remember, Mark, that Vixen has been lost in the Baltic twice. I bet you haven't even managed it once.
Click to expand...

I haven't been to the Baltic but I have crossed the Atlantic, wandered all over the Caribbean and Med and ventured in to the Indian Ocean and nosed around the Norwegian coast, north sea and various Scottish island groups., there was a war involved at one point.


Lots of big storms weathered but I've never been lost at sea though.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
This is an extremely accurate depiction of the complacency factors we find time and again when investigating accidents. As much as people want to point to single precipitating events, and as much as people want to downplay the effects of individual factors, what we see almost all the time is an accumulation of seemingly acceptable individual allowances that collectively erode the safety margin down to nothing. Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" to describe this phenomenon.

Safety margins are meant to absorb individual and momentary departures from a safe operating envelope. When they are used to absorb ongoing departures, there effectively is no safety margin anymore. The next momentary departure in some variable or subset of variables from their safe operating envelope produces a nonlinear response in the system, usually in the form of some kind of accident. The normalization of deviance arises because individual (and even most chronic) incursions into the safety margin produce no adverse consequence. That's the function of a safety margin: to allow you to observe and respond to an incursion without suffering tightly-coupled consequences. Aside from sustainable regulatory penalties or stern talkings-to, no memorable consequence follows. There is then created in the minds of operators the illusion that the system can be operated safely well inside the safety margin. Operators often realize a greater operational efficiency by doing so, and thereby are tempted to continue doing it. A false assurance of safety is speciously reckoned from the lack of catastrophe inherent to the safety margin—the absence of memorable consequence.

In short, what we usually see in operators implicated in accidents is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and intent of a safety margin. This is what we saw in the MS Estonia case. Operators were blind to the cumulative effect of individually sustainable conditions that had been allowed to become chronic in order to expand production efficiency. In this predicament, the precipitating event need not have been singularly catastrophic, or even especially deviant. With no effective safety margin to absorb it, even a seemingly incremental degradation can cause the system to respond in a nonlinear manner.
Click to expand...

Very well said.

Unfortunately this is beyond the comprehension of some people, who will continue to insist that there was a singular, likely intentional, cause of the sinking that subsequently required an extensive cover up.
 
Steve said:
Unfortunately this is beyond the comprehension of some people, who will continue to insist that there was a singular, likely intentional, cause of the sinking that subsequently required an extensive cover up.
Click to expand...

Hence why armchair detectives are worse than useless.
 
Myriad said:
It wasn't about the Baltic being the most violent sea on the planet. It's about careless disregard for the obvious and ominous accumulation of multiple needless risk factors. People who underestimate cumulative risks drown in placid ponds as well as tsunamis, crash on suburban streets as well as racetracks, and die on Mount Washington as well as Mount Everest.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, if you were careful to avoid sailing in bad weather.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, if you were careful to keep her well maintained.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, if you were careful to keep it in perfect trim.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, if you were steaming with a following wind and waves.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, if you reduced your speed.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, at full speed, if your crew were continuously vigilant about the operating condition of every critical part of the vessel and responsive to all warning signs.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, at full speed, with you and your crew slacking off and disregarding warning signs, if you were very lucky.

But we know the vessel, crew, and passengers were not very lucky that night. The reason luck was left as their only (and ultimately inadequate) hope for collective survival was all those other factors that the people who should have known better idiotically allowed to stack up against them without even noticing until it was too late.
Click to expand...

Luck...? Whilst it is useful to understand the general reasons for accidents, reading the above, anyone would think the sudden drowning of up to a thousand people within half an hour was an everyday occurence.

We do not need to look at generalisations for a specific case. The JAIC have already looked at the retrospective generalisations as to why the accident happened and it guessed, ' a strong wave', a particularly bad storm and a particularly fast speed. So that is why the bow visor suddenly fell off. It must have been bad workmanship or bad maintenance. Ah, well shrug. None of this was proven. In fact:

  • The Captain of nearby Silja Europa said the weather was normal for that time of year
  • The Captains of Viking Mariella (Thoresson) and Silja Europa (Makela) confirmed the three vessels were travelling more or less side by side to Stokholm as per normal
  • Captains Thoresson and Makela confirm they could see each other.
  • Neither of these Captains mention a 'strong wave' or any such 'super wave'
  • On approaching the stricken vessel, Capt Makela said he was shocked to not see any sign of it at all, as would be normal in a sinking ship.


So ascribing sweeping generalisations into a specific case, where we know many of the details, just doesn't succeed in hand waving it away.
 
JayUtah said:
Hence why armchair detectives are worse than useless.
Click to expand...

Jutta Rabe, Harri Ruotsalainen, Margus Kurm and Henrik Evertsson, et al, are hardly 'armchair detectives'.


A virtual thank you to these guys and all those who have been determined to bring out into the open the truth of what happened to the M/V Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
Explain why you have named me in particular.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that?

Also if you're going to try to use Rabe as a source you need to show evidence for her claims and explain why they read like a terrible pulp spy novel and aren't remotely close to the reality of the intelligence community.
 
So, the Maritime Executive implies that we will not be getting any further report. You recall the Arikas/Sandback one was 'preliminary' and a full report was due in January 2024? It now seems this will not actually be made public (so what happened to the 30,000 or so images that were being taken?) if this is what is being claimed when it reports the Swedish prosecutor 'has closed the case'.

However, a joint Estonian, Finnish and Swedish report released in 2023 pushed back on these controversial claims and endorsed the original conclusion: the bow visor failed due to mechanical fatigue.

Swedish prosecutors have now accepted this conclusion as well, and have declined to reopen the case, citing lack of evidence for an alternative explanation.

"Based on the actions of the investigative bodies, there is no indication that a collision with a ship or floating object or an explosion on the bow occurred. There's also nothing else to suspect that a crime was committed. Therefore, preliminary investigations will not start, and the case will be closed," said lead prosecutor Karolina Wieslander.
Click to expand...

Since when was it in the hands of the Swedish Prosecutor, other than as of the time of the accident, when they closed their investigation then? If it is true we will not be hearing any more of the Arikas investigation then to my mind it proves that (a) there is something to hide and they cannot produce the report for fear of being found to be deliberately misleading in the years to come so instead they announce 'case closed' (b) they are not being straight with the relatives of the 500 or so Swedish victims or the 300 or so Estonian victims plus dozens of victims of other nationalities.

So IMV they should show us the proof the holes in the hull were produced by rocks.

If the 'case is closed', as seems to be the case, it is an outrage.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln
 
MarkCorrigan said:
What do you mean by that?

Also if you're going to try to use Rabe as a source you need to show evidence for her claims and explain why they read like a terrible pulp spy novel and aren't remotely close to the reality of the intelligence community.
Click to expand...

You wrote:

"Hell I'd bet that I've done more sailing than Vixen has."

Why?



You are not even familiar with Rabe. You did a 'cock of the walk' thing and declared her 'an insane crank' without knowing anything about her and as if you are the arbiter.
 
Vixen said:
... reading the above, anyone would think the sudden drowning of up to a thousand people within half an hour was an everyday occurence.
Click to expand...

No. No reasonable person would read it and think that.

The reasons for the sinking are painfully clear and further investigation has confirmed rather than confounded that. Your unceasing efforts to cram nonsense into the mouths of the investigators (superwave? really?) and turn this tragedy into some fantastical movie thriller are nonsense.
 
Vixen said:
You wrote:

"Hell I'd bet that I've done more sailing than Vixen has."

Why?
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe your stories, and I have some experience sailing, albeit much less than Andy or Jay.

Vixen said:
You are not even familiar with Rabe. .
Click to expand...
Wrong. Hilariously wrong. Stop trying to pretend you're the only one who knows what they're talking about. Remember when you tried that with the book I owned?
Vixen said:
You did a 'cock of the walk' thing
Click to expand...
Laughable attempt to poison the well by presenting me as a smug idiot. Again, its really obvious what youre trying to do Vixen. Youre really really crap at it.
Vixen said:
and declared her 'an insane crank' without knowing anything about her and as if you are the arbiter.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just plain not true. I did know that she had produced a wildly implausible book of conspiracy twaddle and I declared her such because of said wildly implausible conspiracy twaddle.

Also stop trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are attempting to use her as a source, it is on you to show that her writings are reasonable and not paranoid 007 fanfiction.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Because I don't believe your stories, and I have some experience sailing, albeit much less than Andy or Jay.

Wrong. Hilariously wrong. Stop trying to pretend you're the only one who knows what they're talking about. Remember when you tried that with the book I owned?
Laughable attempt to poison the well by presenting me as a smug idiot. Again, its really obvious what youre trying to do Vixen. Youre really really crap at it.

Nope. Just plain not true. I did know that she had produced a wildly implausible book of conspiracy twaddle and I declared her such because of said wildly implausible conspiracy twaddle.

Also stop trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are attempting to use her as a source, it is on you to show that her writings are reasonable and not paranoid 007 fanfiction.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You can read German or Swedish? The book was nothing at all to do with 'pulp fiction' it was a descriptive narrative, together with the laboratory reports , graphs and tables of international metallurgy labs, and a reproduction of a report written by naval explosions expert, Brian Braidwood and naval expert Michael Fellowes. The metallurgy samples were retrieved by divers on a vessel commandeered by Rabe and Gregg Bemiss (look him up: he is one of America's most respected mariners).


How do you work out you have more experience of sailing than specifically, myself?
 
Vixen said:
Oh really? You can read German or Swedish?
Click to expand...
You do know translations and summaries exist right?
Vixen said:
The book was nothing at all to do with 'pulp fiction'
Click to expand...
It reads like it. Its a badly thought out pulp spy novel, not serious journalism.
Vixen said:
it was a descriptive narrative, together with the laboratory reports , graphs and tables of international metallurgy labs, and a reproduction of a report written by naval explosions expert, Brian Braidwood and naval expert Michael Fellowes. The metallurgy samples were retrieved by divers on a vessel commandeered by Rabe and Gregg Bemiss (look him up: he is one of America's most respected mariners)
Click to expand...
It advances conspiracy theories without evidence and Braidwood never saw the site, just the pictures. We went over this.

Vixen said:
How do you work out you have more experience of sailing than specifically, myself?
Click to expand...
I answered this. Because I don't believe your stories about yourself. You routinely lie to make yourself seem more important than you are and routinely lie about what others say. Again, remember the IRA farce or the incident with the book I own?
 
Vixen said:
So, the Maritime Executive implies that we will not be getting any further report. You recall the Arikas/Sandback one was 'preliminary' and a full report was due in January 2024? It now seems this will not actually be made public (so what happened to the 30,000 or so images that were being taken?) if this is what is being claimed when it reports the Swedish prosecutor 'has closed the case'.



Since when was it in the hands of the Swedish Prosecutor, other than as of the time of the accident, when they closed their investigation then? If it is true we will not be hearing any more of the Arikas investigation then to my mind it proves that (a) there is something to hide and they cannot produce the report for fear of being found to be deliberately misleading in the years to come so instead they announce 'case closed' (b) they are not being straight with the relatives of the 500 or so Swedish victims or the 300 or so Estonian victims plus dozens of victims of other nationalities.

So IMV they should show us the proof the holes in the hull were produced by rocks.

If the 'case is closed', as seems to be the case, it is an outrage.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...

This was all explained from the link I posted from the Swedish Prosecutor.

The Prosecutors have investigated the (reopened) legal case, and based on the information they have received from the combined Estonian/Swedish ongoing accident investigation, they have decided that there is no case to drive from the legal perspective.

The investigation performed by the Estonian Safety investigation Bureau together with the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority is still ongoing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom